On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:06 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 23:03 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > > What about just killing the config option entirely? It' basically
> > > guarding a ~50 lines function + a sysctl variable. I think having
> > > modules but not CONFIG_KMOD is entirely unreasonable.
> >
> > I agree with Christoph here.
>
> Yeah, like I said, I wasn't sure why it's there anyway.
>
> > But as a patch series please: it's spread pretty wide. eg. first make it a
> > non-prompting CONFIG option, then remove the users, then finally kill it.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Some existing request_module users might be able to use
> > try_then_request_module, too...
>
> try_then_request_module seems buggy though. Or at least, doing something
> unexpected. Here's the macro, for reference:
>
> #define try_then_request_module(x, mod...) ((x) ?: (request_module(mod), (x)))
>
> I think it should be
> #define try_then_request_module(x, mod...) \
> ((x) ?: ({request_module(mod); (x)}))
>
> the difference being that it returns the result of the second "x" when
> the first "x" fails.
Never mind, it's not actually different, I just didn't understand that
syntax correctly.
The rest still stands though, do we really want to evaluate x twice when
CONFIG_MODULES is not set? Then, theoretically, the result shouldn't
change.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
